Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antioch]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html

An interesting legal question concerning a monkey that steals a camera from a photographer and the photographer claiming the copyright.

A lot of people seem to say that the photo is public domain because they say Slater isn't the creator and the monkey can't own copyright.

Before giving my personal opinion I would like to ask what you think about this issue?

[Loud Whispers]

Citing Garfield I would like to point out animals can claim ownership therefore it is the Monkey's intellectual property.

[Lagslayer]

How could this be anything but a gag thread?

That being said, animals cannot own property under the law, and it would therefor default to the owner of the camera.

[IronyOwl]

That being said, animals cannot own property under the law, and it would therefor default to the owner of the camera.

Would it?

[martinuzz]

Since at the time of the selfie, the camera was not in the possession of the claimant, it could be argued that at that time, he was not technically the owner of said camera.
If it was a digital camera, ownership could very well be with the camera's manufacturer, or it's software developer, depending on the EULA.

[Loud Whispers]

I am just going to point out I automatically side against anyone who stands against the freedom of the internet and the freedom of information.  I understand fully that these people rely on their royalties and such for income but I have talked to people like him from the music industry before and they said exactly the same things, laughing down at the filthy plebs who were under the misconception that you could listen to music for free, look at pictures for free and read stories for free. If you're going to defend increasing the power of IP lobbies then you should at the very least do so in a way that doesn't make you seem like a nob. He even said that part of the reason why he wanted to secure IP rights was to promote conservation, now look at it! It's his most popular photo AND it's doing more for conservation that it would have ever done had he simply sent it off to his agent for monetization. Would it even be anywhere near its high popularity now were it not for the internet?

[martinuzz]

I am just going to point out I automatically side against anyone who stands against the freedom of the internet and the freedom of information.  I understand fully that these people rely on their royalties and such for income but I have talked to people like him from the music industry before and they said exactly the same things, laughing down at the filthy plebs who were under the misconception that you could listen to music for free, look at pictures for free and read stories for free. If you're going to defend increasing the power of IP lobbies then you should at the very least do so in a way that doesn't make you seem like a nob. He even said that part of the reason why he wanted to secure IP rights was to promote conservation, now look at it! It's his most popular photo AND it's doing more for conservation that it would have ever done had he simply sent it off to his agent for monetization. Would it even be anywhere near its high popularity now were it not for the internet?

Full agree. I firmly believe that the dogmatic misconceptions 'copyright', and moreso even, 'patent right' (on which the unfortunate nescessity of him needing royalties to make a living is based) are a serious threat to, if not the main thing holding back the advancement of civilization as a whole.

[BFEL]

I wouldn't go so far as "the main thing" but its definitely a retarded thing.

[penguinofhonor]

Nobody's arguing that the monkey owns the copyright. Merely that the guy doesn't, and the monkey can't own it, so nobody owns it. I'd appreciate if we avoided copy-pasting clickbait titles into the forum.

[Graknorke]

Well on principle I side against the guy being able to get it taken down, but I guess the picture could belong to him. I mean, you own things that you just find, even if you didn't make them. And since the monkey can't have rights on the picture, the guy found it so it's his.
In so far as a bit of data can be somebody's property anyway.

[penguinofhonor]

I was going to post later and actually give my opinion on the article, but it's pretty much identical to Granorke's.

[My Name is Immaterial]

Well, the question is, if an entity that cannot hold property triggered the creation of a concept that could be considered property, who owns the rights to photos captured via automatic cameras designed to take pictures of wild life?

[Lagslayer]

maybe we are looking at this wrong. How about a similar problem.

Let's assume someone steals a million dollars and invests it. The investments pay off and makes a 3 million dollar profit. The thief gets caught. Naturally, he has to return the million dollars, but who owns the rest of it?

[Loud Whispers]

maybe we are looking at this wrong. How about a similar problem.
Let's assume someone steals a million dollars and invests it. The investments pay off and makes a 3 million dollar profit. The thief gets caught. Naturally, he has to return the million dollars, but who owns the rest of it?

The owner of the stolen money, because the money was stolen. The analogy doesn't really fit at all since no one is profiting from the photo monetarily as it is being used academically (legal in copyright laws regardless of who owns it), the photo isn't stolen and nothing is being invested.

And a monkey is not involved.

[Strife26]

Well, the question is, if an entity that cannot hold property triggered the creation of a concept that could be considered property, who owns the rights to photos captured via automatic cameras designed to take pictures of wild life?

I would say that this is the crucial question to ask. Whoever owns the camera owns those pictures, regardless of what action (manual, timer, movement, ir trip) set off the camera.